What's weird about the whole incident is that anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the PC gaming space could have told you that this is exactly what would happen.
this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
236 points (93.4% liked)
Gaming
19991 readers
52 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The biggest stumble seems to be from releasing without the requirement initially, and making the game available for sale in non-PSN countries.
Other studios like EA and Microsoft have traditionally required their accounts on online games since release; but unless I’m wrong, those accounts are also available in more countries.
Attempted in the name of greed, reversed in the name of greed.
Corporations are the answer to "what will make the most amount of money?"
The only thing they learned, for the next week, is that a healthy playerbase is more profitable than an exclusive one.
As always, probably a decision that came from up high, I assume everyone actually on the floor in Sony know this world be a terrible thing and universally hated and argued as such.
Very smart of arrow head to announce the update to get the public's opinion before the change was implemented.
Article gets kinda weird at the end and calls the review bombing harassment. Seems like a 180 from the beginning of the article, unless the writer thinks Sony would have changed its mind with 0 protest action.
The whole article was poorly written honestly, but yeah, that part really felt off. If the only thing they care about is money, then by nature our only real means of protest is to affect their money.
Game reviewer mad when people review a game "wrong"? More likely than you think.
What a delusional perspective. I wish I could get "harassed" by thousands of fans clearly explaining what they want from my software.
It also calls all the customers who don't want to be locked out of the product they paid for 'fickle' and brought up gamergate out of nowhere, so I'm honestly not sure what sort of agenda they're pushing.
kotaku moment
Or resetera
It's probably them just trying to go for a synonym to describe what happened as they're not usually allowed to repeat themselves.
PlayStation often makes unforced errors that make you wonder how it gained such a significant foothold across the last few console generations and such a fiercely loyal audience.
Mostly unforced errors from other companies. It's dumb decisions all the way down.
How do you tell everyone you like baseball without telling them you like baseball.
I think the answer is simple (they probably mentioned it in the article I'm not reading). Sony makes good hardware and good games. They don't really need to compete with Nintendo since they kinda do their own thing at this point, and Microsoft is really no better. I also think Playstation is generally regarded as having better exclusives, even during the 360 era where Xbox clearly won.
Actually in the 360 era, the PS3 ended up selling more by the end.
So in the public eye people usually consider the 360 winning but by other metrics, the PS3 did.
My experience is that seems to be a US centric view that the 360 "won" it's generation, I've never encountered that view locally and it's ultimately not born out by statistics although it was the closest Microsoft ever came.
In the UK, where I'm from, it's widely considered 360 won too.
The reason the PS3 won in the end I think was due to a worsening opinion of Microsoft towards the end when the original plan for the Xbox One was being discussed and shown, along with a lot of teenage gamers now being older with more disposable income allowing them to buy a PS3 later in the generation and trying out all of the exclusives they missed out on.
I don't know how true this rings out in general, but that was pretty much my experience.
I'm in the UK and no one I know considers the 360 to have won, regional preferences for one over the other perhaps?
The north east for me. Pretty much everyone had a 360 and everyone still calls it "the 360 days" or something of the other. But might just be the people I come across. Only had a few friends that had a PS3 in school, they always seemed to be left out from what the others were doing gaming wise. Wasn't until the PS4 until I started seeing people back to playing PlayStation by default like the PS2 days.
Yeah they both make a bunch of really anti consumer choices constantly, I never got the diehards who go hard for the console. Exclusive games I can at least understand, but is an Xbox really that functionality different from a PlayStation?
I was a Nintendo kid in the 99s, then had a PS2 followed by a 360, I really only got a PS4 cause the opportunity for a deal came up, and I only got a PS5 cause I already had a PS4.
Admittedly that's probably where most of the fan clubbing comes from, generationally upgrading until you're to use to the system to change.
Playstation's exclusives are on the whole, a lot more interesting to me. I honestly have almost no interest in Xbox because of that. It's not the hardware, it's purely the software.
Playstation won with the PS5 because MS realized PC players have more money and went back to them.
MS left the game because they found a better game.
Let's not forget that with Gamepass, it's not just a better game by folding in PC, but they're doing something completely different with their consoles than Sony is. More and more, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are either competing with Valve or against themselves, and not each other.
Except for Nintendo, they're still just doing what they've been doing for the last 20 years, releasing consoles with outdated hardware and relying on gimmicks to sell them, at this point they're not even trying to compete anymore, Valve is a stronger competitor for Microsoft and Sony than Nintendo nowadays.
Nintendo has always been the king of handheld for as long as handheld gaming has been a thing.
I'd put a lot of money on them viewing Valve as their biggest threat currently.
Yeah, I loved my switch when I first got it, but have hardly touched it since I got my steamdeck.
But the switch isn't just an underpowered console... It's a handheld with an HDMI port
Underpowered gimmick yeah
Our family uses it all the time for Smash Bros, Mario Kart, or other party games.
I would not have bought a Switch if it didn’t have console mode.
Still, raw processing power comparatively it is underpowered, can't push beyond 1080p for example, which is fine for Nintendo games because they make games with that limitation in mind, third party switch games are a lot more hit or miss, especially ports of pc games.
Compared to even cell phones the switch is laughably underpowered in the year 2024.
Not saying it can't be useful or enjoyable, just gotta face facts about what the device is lol.
Steam deck is starting to eat their lunch I think.
I don't think they would be ditching the table if they were winning tbh. Their goal is always to get as many people to subscribe to their stuff as possible